Atheists are not allowed to contribute because the fraternity holds the belief in a higher Supreme Being. If atheists want to start their own
fraternity and set different rules, have at it.

The fact that the masons claim to instil moral values in men, and then put particular prerequisites on that very morality just seems hypocritical to
me. It sounds cliqued, pretentious and elitist. To deny access to atheists and women sends out the message that ''we are better than
you''.

Masonry is anything but elitist and pretentious. Men don't volunteer their time and energy, and donate their money to philanthropic causes out of
pretentiousness. They do so because they are good men.

No one is denying women anything - They can join Eastern Star. Atheists, on the other hand, can go ahead and start their own fraternity if they so
choose.

Also, what's this business on having to be heavily reccommended to get in?

Most Masons are recommended to the fraternity by their fathers, or by a close friend. Others approach the Lodge on their own accord, and - after a
period of getting to know the individual - various officers of the Lodge will vouch for the applicant.

Also, traditionally, a committee of 3 Brothers will visit the applicant at their home, to make sure that the individual is of good moral character.

I merely see the masonry for what it is; benevolent, but self-indulgent and deceptive.

How exactly is Masonry self-indulgent and "deceptive" as you claim? Do you have any proof? Any evidence? Or are these just your own personal
whims based on your personal belief system (atheism) that runs counter to another (belief in God)?

Just because a fraternity has a differing set of beliefs that you do, does not entitle you to make fraudulent claims that the fraternity is
"self-indulgent" and "deceptive".

There is no deception in Freemasonry. The rituals are public information. Anyone wary of joining is perfectly entitled to read the rituals
themselves before joining. No deception there.

Anyone that joins does so of their own free will and accord. There is no one forcing anyone to join, and we do NOT solicit new members. You will
never find a Mason knocking on your door asking you to join.

We must be gouging our members then, right? Hardly. Our yearly dues are less than a nice dinner out on the town - about $80 per year - very
affordable.

So how exactly is the fraternity deceptive? What is it that we are deceiving people into? We are open about our rituals, we don't solicit new
members or force anyone to join, and we don't charge ridiculous dues.

My advice to the thread starter remains the same; if you want to be a philantropist, or if you want to expand your moral compass, there are better
ways to do that than joining the masonry. Again, all my opinion, but you can bet your eggs that's worth a lot.

My advice to the original poster is to ignore atheists on conspiracy forums that don't know one iota about Freemasonry. Start by visiting your local
Lodge, and make your own decisions about what you think about the fraternity.

If you join, you can be assured that you will be in the company of good men of strong character, civic-minded, of good report, respectful of your
political and religious leanings, and charitable. You will, in all likelihood, get to meet some of the more outstanding leaders in your community,
and become lifelong friends with your Lodge brothers.

In America Boy Scouts do not allow entrance to Homosexuals or Atheist.

The Scouts programs were also founded by a few Freemasons, if you want a little trivia questions. I never knew that until someone pointed it out to
me, as I was in the Order of the Arrow, it makes more sense now that I am a Mason.. hopefully I will have a son someday so I can see the ceremony
played out again, and will be able to expand upon it.

You know perfectly well that in some of the more high brow professions, law, the police, politics, etc, you simply cannot climb the promotion ladder
unless you belong to a lodge. My own father became a victim of this descrimination. That's why the brotherhood will always be connected to the elite
NWO because they are made up of top business men, lawyers and politicians, who couldn't have got to that position without the help of the fraternity.
Who knows, it might just be a coincidence (I'm open to that) but it is a fact. Just think of the Bilderberg group for instance! A group who seem to
be pre writting history and political policy made up of top politicians and businessmen, all of whom almost certainly passed through the doors of the
lodge to get to their lofty positions.
Is this a coincidence?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
You know perfectly well that in some of the more high brow professions, law, the police, politics, etc, you simply cannot climb the promotion ladder
unless you belong to a lodge. My own father became a victim of this descrimination.

We've been back and forth on this over 2 or 3 threads, for
numerous pages of posts. We're not getting anywhere, but I think part of that may be a matter of context. Most of the Masons replying here are
American, and not even particularly "small town America". You are, if I recall correctly, in the UK? By wikipedia's info, the Liverpool
metropolitan area has a population of a bit over 1 million people. The city I live in has a population more than 5 times that. The scale is different,
and it really does work differently.

So while it may be true where you live that all the lawyers, judges, police, or whathaveyou must be Masons to progress, that's certainly not the case
everywhere.

That's why we're never going to be able to resolve this point of conflict with you. Your truth will never be the same as my truth. It can't be,
because we're on different sides of the globe, living and working under entirely different political and social foundations.

So when I say that Masonry has nothing to do with climbing the ladder in business and politics, that's absolutely true where I live. I'm not lying
to you. Neither are the other Masons here. But your own experience may show you different. You're not lying either. It's just a matter of putting
either point of view into the proper frame of reference.

Okay, I understand what you're saying and the may be an element of truth therein but even in the USA you have to admit that masons dominate your
government? I believe Clinton for instance was involved even though it was at a low level. The Bush family where certainly in the masons (?) and who
knows about Obama? The rumours are already circulating that he may be involved.
In this country, not just Liverpool, we have the royal family steeped in masonic history, our politicians are almost certainly freemasons especially
people like, Brown, Blair, Mandelson, Cameron,etc, and I think it would be virtually impossible to get into the house of lords without some masonic
involvement. And since they dictate our laws you can see why I have my doubts over the brotherhood.
There's no escaping the fact that those at the top have had some masonic involvement in their life which has helped them climb to their positions of
power. I'm not saying that the masons are out to control the world but what I am saying is those who are actively trying to control it have passed
through a lodge at some point.

You know perfectly well that in some of the more high brow professions, law, the police, politics, etc, you simply cannot climb the promotion ladder
unless you belong to a lodge. My own father became a victim of this descrimination.

I think, however, that you could make the same claim for many other organizations. If my boss, and my co-worker go to the same church, then he has
the upper edge for obtaining a promotion than I do. You could also make the same claim for any church, fraternity, political organization, charity,
etc.

Anywhere there is close, regular contact with managers and subordinates outside the workplace that leads to trust, friendship, and a good working
relationship, then that parlays in the favor of the subordinate being promoted over others outside of the "group" so to speak.

When you join a Lodge, you do become close friends with your Lodge Brothers, and you do establish long-term relationships if you stay involved and
active in the Lodge.

While I am sorry to hear about your father, I would only suggest to you that this occurs outside of the Lodge whenever there is a scenario of
boss-subordinates having similar affiliations. In America, you could definitely make the same argument for our country clubs here. Golf is a huge
business here, and people that golf together tend to do business with each other. Same thing with promotions - Golfing buddies tend to look out for
each other.

With that being said, I find it funny that Freemasonry gets blackballed for this kind of cronyism. In America, I see this kind of cronyism in all
kinds of places outside the workplace besides the Lodge - I see it in country clubs, business networking groups, churches, other fraternities, college
fraternities, etc. Maybe it's more prevalent in certain professions in Europe - like law, police, etc. as you mention. But, believe me, Freemasonry
isn't the only organization that has members giving preference to each other.

I also can honestly say that I have never received a single business promotion or favor based on my association with the Lodge. In fact, people that
join the Lodge for business reasons or to "get ahead" are actually frowned upon in the States. We see a lot of "Financial Advisors" that want to
join the Lodge because they want to build their clientele. Older Masons that have been around awhile can spot genuine interest in Freemasonry versus
ladder climbers a mile away.

And those that only want to use Freemasonry to enhance their social status usually don't stick around very long. They tend to leave after they
realize that Freemasonry is not at all about climbing a social ladder, but about philanthropy, fraternal bonds, and the initiation rituals. They tend
to get bored and drop out after awhile.

I believe Clinton for instance was involved even though it was at a low level. The Bush family where certainly in the masons (?) and who knows about
Obama?

Clinton was in DeMolay as a kid, and never had any association with Freemasonry thereafter. The Bush's - George Sr. and George Jr. - were involved
in the Skull and Bones Society at Yale - Not Freemasonry. As far as Obama, he has no known public association with Freemasonry as far as I can
tell.

but what I am saying is those who are actively trying to control it have passed through a lodge at some point.

Well, most people in positions of power in the West have spent more time going to church on Sunday then they have going to the Lodge. Most people in
power spend more time at their local country club playing golf and drinking beer then they do attending Lodge.

Most politicians in the USA don't have much involvement in Freemasonry like politicians of decades past used to, because they don't have or make the
time to devote to the Craft.

The world is changing, and men are less interested in going to a business meeting at their local Masonic Lodge, then they are in playing Nintendo and
watching TIVO.

And those that only want to use Freemasonry to enhance their social status usually don't stick around very long.

Maybe they disappear because someone from the Illuminati recognises that they could be important in the future and moves them on to help the NWO
achieve its aims?
I have been saying all along that the lodges may be hunting grounds for the elite to cherry pick up and coming businessmen, politicians, etc, which
may prove influential in the future. What you're saying could be interpreted as proving my point.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Okay, I understand what you're saying and the may be an element of truth therein but even in the USA you have to admit that masons dominate your
government?

They may have 40 or 50 years ago, they don't today. Those men have died off and been replaced by a younger generation that had no interest in being
"joiners" like their fathers were.

I believe Clinton for instance was involved even though it was at a low level. The Bush family where certainly in the masons (?) and who knows
about Obama? The rumours are already circulating that he may be involved.

I don't understand why there is still such confusion over this.
Neither of the Bushes, nor Clinton, nor Obama are, were, or have ever been Freemasons. If any of those men had been Masons, the Masons would advertise
that fact to no end. It would be good for Masonry if such high profile people were Masons. It would attract new members, which is what Masonry is
desperate for right now. It would bring Masonry to the public eye, which is what Masonry needs if it's going to survive. Members are dying off faster
than new ones can be initiated. Every month my Scottish Rite chapter reads the names of 20 or more members who have died in the last month. So
locally, we're losing more than 250 members a year, and lucky to bring in, perhaps 60 new, young members. I can promise you that regardless of their
political affiliation, if any of those US presidents had been Masons, they'd be on the cover of every Masonic magazine in print. It's simply good
public relations to do so.

There's no escaping the fact that those at the top have had some masonic involvement in their life which has helped them climb to their
positions of power. I'm not saying that the masons are out to control the world but what I am saying is those who are actively trying to control it
have passed through a lodge at some point.

I tend to quibble on the matter of "have had" as being past tense. We had some good discussion
about it in this thread, but overall, when it comes down to it, the number of Masons
has dropped significantly in the last 60 or so years. (Peak numbers were in the 1940s-1950s) and the number of Masons in "positions of power" has
decreased at least proportionally (compounded by the number of women in political office today, etc).

Maybe they disappear because someone from the Illuminati recognises that they could be important in the future and moves them on to help the NWO
achieve its aims? I have been saying all along that the lodges may be hunting grounds for the elite to cherry pick up and coming businessmen,
politicians, etc, which may prove influential in the future. What you're saying could be interpreted as proving my point.

Humorous, yes. Here's reality: Joe Financial Advisor, 22-30 years old, just earned his license (insurance, securities, real estate, whatever), and
reads that he should join the Masons to build his clientele. He doesn't really want to join, he just wants more clients. He joins the Lodge - maybe
even sticks around long enough to get his Master Mason degree - then drops out. He may pay his dues every year, but that's about it. He doesn't
attend the meetings, only rarely.

The real die-hard Freemasons at your local Lodge comprise maybe 5-10% of the total population that belong to that particular Lodge - at least that's
what I have found based on my current jurisdiction. These are the guys that know the ritual, attend every meeting, belong to multiple masonic groups
- They are the die-hards.

The only people that would ever qualify as being NWO agents, or "Illuminati" are the die-hards that have been around for decades and have risen up
through the ranks. Why? They have proven their loyalty.

The newbies that drop out are NOT qualified to become Illuminati, or NWO agents. Too young, and haven't paid their dues.

Now, that's also giving you the benefit of the doubt that an Illuminati exists. I have never seen any proof that it does in the Masonic fraternity,
but I can tell you - the low-level newbies are most definitely not going to be NWO agents or "Illuminati" as you call it. They are too disloyal,
and aren't ingrained in the Masonic fraternity enough to be trusted with anything.

don't understand why there is still such confusion over this. Neither of the Bushes, nor Clinton, nor Obama are, were, or have ever been Freemasons.
If any of those men had been Masons, the Masons would advertise that fact to no end.

But Isn't it meant to be a secret?
I thought that was one of the main rules of masonry that you don't tell anyone you're a mason and you certainly don't tell anyone the secrets. . .
What you seem to be implying is that the freemasons lodge head, I forget his name, would now openly reveal someone as a mason as long as it benefitted
the brotherhood. How bizarre. . !

But Isn't it meant to be a secret? I thought that was one of the main rules of masonry that you don't tell anyone you're a mason and you certainly
don't tell anyone the secrets. . . What you seem to be implying is that the freemasons lodge head, I forget his name, would now openly reveal someone
as a mason as long as it benefitted the brotherhood. How bizarre. . !

The only secrets forbidden are certain signs and a token (password). The rest of the ritual is public - Heck, even the signs and passwords are public
knowledge if anyone wants to do the research or look online.

There are no rules or restrictions about disclosing your Masonic affiliation.

And the head of a Lodge - a Worshipful Master - doesn't "out" a brother Mason to the public by calling his local newspaper. That just doesn't
happen. First, there is no benefit to the fraternity, and secondly, it serves no purpose.

The fraternity does give accolades to members that have risen to prominence - especially big industrialists and politicians (Ford, Edison, George
Washington, etc.). This is not done to "out" the Mason to the public, but is done in recognition of their achievements. It is not a negative
chastisement, but a positive endorsement of the individual and their achievements.

But Isn't it meant to be a secret?
I thought that was one of the main rules of masonry that you don't tell anyone you're a mason and you certainly don't tell anyone the secrets. . .
What you seem to be implying is that the freemasons lodge head, I forget his name, would now openly reveal someone as a mason as long as it benefitted
the brotherhood. How bizarre. . !

It has never been a rule to keep membership secret. Masons are proud to be Masons, and on practically any Masonic website, you'll find the "famous
Masons" list.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
But Isn't it meant to be a secret?
I thought that was one of the main rules of masonry that you don't tell anyone you're a mason...

Not at all. Every Mason I know wears Masonic rings, jewelry, etc. I know more than a few who have Masonic tattoos on their arms, legs, or backs (ok,
not all would be always visible, but they're certainly not shy about flashing the ink to those who want to see it); more than half the cars in our
lodge parking lot have Masonic bumper stickers, emblems, etc. So no. There's no rule saying you have to keep your membership secret. (Quite the
opposite... at least in my jurisdiction, they make sure that 1st and 2nd degree members are not allowed to wear Masonic jewelry until they become
Master Masons, so that they don't get mistaken for that which they aren't, but once you are a Maser Mason, anything goes...)

What you seem to be implying is that the freemasons lodge head, I forget his name, would now openly reveal someone as a mason as long as it
benefitted the brotherhood. How bizarre. . !

Is it really that hard to imagine? Check out the
Strategic Plan of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction...

STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE II

Build a Positive Public Image of Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite

KEY STRATEGIES:

Establish a Public Relations Department

Expand the public awareness of our philanthropic activities

Establish a media relations strategy

Establish means to utilize well-known members to accomplish the objective

Establish initiatives to educate the public about the core values of the Scottish Rite

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I guess I would ask you for any legitimate proof that the Masons do NOT, in fact, admonish their members to conduct themselves with moral integrity.
Proof, evidence. Not your opinion.

Discriminating against women, atheists, and those of ill-repute automatically fosters ignorance and a belief in superiority. If the group was so
fixated on moral growth, atheism, sex, and even reputation would be non-factors...

When was eastern star formed, huh? I'll bet it was long after the masonry....and WHY bother seperating them?

Atheists are not allowed to contribute because the fraternity holds the belief in a higher Supreme Being. If atheists want to start their own
fraternity and set different rules, have at it.

Your avoiding the point...you said masonry was not a religion, yet you have belief requirements. Furthermore, the masonry claims to build moral
character, yet subtly discriminates against those of a different belief system...

Masonry is anything but elitist and pretentious. Men don't volunteer their time and energy, and donate their money to philanthropic causes out of
pretentiousness. They do so because they are good men.

True...but how you do something is as important as what you do. They are good men, but why do they have to be a particular type of good that have to
meet certain requirements? Doesn't make sense to me...

No one is denying women anything - They can join Eastern Star. Atheists, on the other hand, can go ahead and start their own fraternity if
they so choose.
is business on having to be heavily reccommended to get in?

In that case, why not just join or create a fraternity that allows access to all? The masonrys obviously enjoy being 'unique' or whatever...such
pride is destructive.

Most Masons are recommended to the fraternity by their fathers, or by a close friend.

Sounds like a template for ladder-climbing and clique based socialisation...

How exactly is Masonry self-indulgent and "deceptive" as you claim? Do you have any proof? Any evidence? Or are these just your own
personal whims based on your personal belief system (atheism) that runs counter to another (belief in God)?

The 'proof' is right in front of you...the indulgent masonry prerequsites. And to your last question, no...

We must be gouging our members then, right? Hardly. Our yearly dues are less than a nice dinner out on the town - about $80 per year - very
affordable.

That's some expensive dinner, luvy!

But I don't recall accusing the fraternity of money-grabbing...

So how exactly is the fraternity deceptive? What is it that we are deceiving people into? We are open about our rituals, we don't solicit
new members or force anyone to join, and we don't charge ridiculous dues.

Inviting members to expand their morality and then putting restrictions on what defines 'morals' is deceptive imo...actually, I suppose it isn't
deceptive...self-deceptive is the more appropriate term for it.

My advice to the original poster is to ignore atheists on conspiracy forums that don't know one iota about Freemasonry.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
I guess I would ask you for any legitimate proof that the Masons do NOT, in fact, admonish their members to conduct themselves with moral integrity.
Proof, evidence. Not your opinion.

Discriminating against women, atheists, and those of ill-repute automatically fosters ignorance and a belief in superiority. If the group was so
fixated on moral growth, atheism, sex, and even reputation would be non-factors...

It's not ill-repute, it's convicted felons. ie, they've
probably already shown issues with morality to some degree. (since legality and morality is so closely tied together in this country, for better or
worse)

I am a homosexual as well as a quasi-atheist, so I find this quite disturbing. And this was founded masons? Dare I ask if homsexuals are
allowed entry into the masonry? Doesn't look good...

There are a number of gay brothers in my lodge, including past officers. I think
there would probably be issues if someone who was transgendered tried to join, but gay males? no problem at all.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.